The Spies Who Ruin Us

In an effort to draw attention away from the intelligence failures that permitted the attacks of 9/11 and create the impression that it was doing something — anything — to avoid a repeat, the federal government tampered seriously with freedoms expressly guaranteed in the Constitution. Its principal target was the right to privacy, which is protected in the Fourth Amendment.

At President George W. Bush's urging, Congress passed the Patriot Act in October 2001. This 315-page statute passed the House of Representatives with no debate, and there was very limited debate in the Senate. I have asked many members of Congress over the years whether they read this bill before they voted upon it, and I have yet to find a member who did. In the House, that would have been impossible; the bill was made available to representatives only 15 minutes prior to their vote.

This law permits FBI agents to write their own search warrants for business records, and it has been used to induce the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue warrants on a made-up basis to read emails and listen to telephone calls in real time. The members of Congress who voted for it were largely unaware of the liberties they were sacrificing.

The personal liberties that Congress surrendered have been a necessary bulwark against tyranny — the constitutional requirement of warrants as a precondition to searching homes and records, with warrants based on probable cause and specifically describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

When Edward Snowden revealed the nature and extent of the domestic spying that the government unleashed upon us post-9/11 and made us all aware of its use of the Patriot Act to do so, the authors of the Patriot Act expressed outrage and anger.

What was the government doing?

The government was secretly gathering data on all of us and using warrants that were not based on probable cause and that did not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. When members of Congress realized that they, too, were being spied upon, the outrage grew. That outrage and anger metastasized into a new law enacted earlier this year, called the USA Freedom Act, which took effect this week. That law, its supporters have argued, will tame the National Security Agency into constitutional compliance and keep its 60,000 agents and contractors out of our private affairs. In fact, it is now worse.

The new law permitted the expiration of Section 215 of the Patriot Act — the section used by the NSA to justify its collection of undifferentiated bulk data about everyone. But it also requires the telecoms and Internet service providers to retain their records for five years, and it gives the NSA instant access to those records whenever it needs them.

How can the NSA get instant access to your emails and phone calls?

Quite easily. Both the Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act unconstitutionally do away with the probable cause requirement for warrants. Those two laws permit the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue warrants based on the standard of "governmental needs" rather than probable cause. This is a profoundly unconstitutional standard, and one that has resulted in spying on all people all the time.

In reality, "governmental needs" is no standard whatsoever, as the government will always claim that it needs what it wants. "Governmental needs" is the hateful standard that was used by the British government when it secretly obtained warrants to enter the homes of the colonists. This provoked the Revolution and produced the Fourth Amendment.

Though Section 215 of the Patriot Act has expired, the NSA's other authorities to spy have not. The propaganda that NSA computers have been shut down is false. Its computers are still in the telecom and Internet service providers' facilities and are operated by NSA agents remotely.

Nevertheless, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and an October 2001 executive order by President Bush are still valid, and both bypass the Constitution and continue to permit mass collection of bulk data. Section 702 permits warrantless surveillance on Americans who speak with foreigners, and the NSA has persuaded the FISA court to issue warrants to intercept the calls of the folks to whom those Americans speak, to the sixth degree. That alone encompasses everyone in the United States.

The Bush executive order was given to all military intelligence agencies — of which the NSA is but one. It instructed the military to intercept the telephone calls of anyone in America it wishes, without seeking any warrants.

Does all this unconstitutional spying — whether pursuant to the Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act or an old presidential executive order — keep us safe? It certainly does not keep our liberties safe. It produces too much material for the government to evaluate. The recent Paris killers communicated with one another using ordinary cellphones and emails. Yet the French government, whose legal authority to spy is broader than our government's, missed them. And the NSA, which spies on the French government, missed them.

The Fourth Amendment has numerous virtues, but foremost among them is a double-sided coin. One side is the requirement of individualized probable cause. When followed, that prevents the government from using general warrants (search wherever you want, and seize whatever you find), the hallmark of totalitarian governments. By confining the government's authority to search only to those cases about which it has suspicion, the other side of that coin forces the government to focus on the bad guys.

When it does that, the government will be far likelier to stop them than when it gathers all it can about everyone.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE...

Ben Shapiro

David Limbaugh

Michelle Malkin

Terence Jeffrey

UP NEXT:

What if the government's goal is to perpetuate itself? What if the real levers of governmental power are pulled by agents and diplomats and bureaucrats behind the scenes? What if they stay in power no matter who is elected president or which political party controls Congress?
What if the frequent public displays of adversity between the Republicans and the Democrats are just a facade and a charade? What if both major political parties agree on the transcendental issues of our day?
What if the leadership of both major political parties believes that our rights are not natural to our humanity but instead gifts from the government? What if those leaders believe that the government that gives gifts to the people can take those gifts back?
What if the leadership of both parties gives only lip service to Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence that all people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, (and) among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and that the purpose of government is to protect these rights? What if the leadership of both parties dismisses these ideas as just Jefferson's outdated musings? What if Jefferson's arguments have been enacted into the federal laws that all in government have sworn to uphold?
What if the leadership of the parties believes that the constitutional requirement of due process somehow permits mothers to kill the babies in their wombs out of fear or convenience? What if the leaders of both parties believe that the president should be able to kill whomever he wants out of fear because due process is an inconvenience?
What if President Barack Obama has killed Americans and claimed that he has done so legally, relying on the convenient arguments of his attorney general, who falsely told him his killings are consistent with due process? What if the Constitution requires due process whenever the government wants someone's life, liberty or property, whether convenient or not? What if due process means a fair jury trial, not an ordered killing?
What if the congressional leadership and most of the membership from both major political parties believe in perpetual war and perpetual debt? What if the history of American government in the past 100 years is proof of this nearly universal belief among the political class?
What if the political class in America believes that war is the health of the state? What if the leadership of that class wants war so as to induce the loyalty of the voters, open the pocketbooks of the taxpayers and cause compliance among the people? What if the political class uses war to enrich its benefactors? What if the government has been paying for war by increasing its debt?
What if the political class has been paying for prosperity by increasing the government's debt? What if that class has controlled the cash-creating computers at the Federal Reserve and the free cash the Fed creates is to bankers and traders what heroin is to addicts? What if the $18.6 trillion current federal government debt has largely b Keep reading